From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 16 13:50:11 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 906BC10656A5 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:50:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com) Received: from mail.intertainservices.com (mail.intertainservices.com [38.99.187.35]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9C38FC13 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:50:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.10.199] (unknown [172.16.10.199]) by mail.intertainservices.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A6FE256D9B for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:50:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C694204.5080906@intertainservices.com> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:49:56 -0400 From: Mike Jakubik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <4C5BC280.1070805@FreeBSD.org> <4C5BF352.5050004@dataix.net> <4C5C7DFF.8020400@FreeBSD.org> <4C5CFBCD.8090702@dataix.net> <4C6417BC.9060605@intertainservices.com> <4C656919.9070703@intertainservices.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-intertainservices-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-intertainservices-MailScanner-ID: A6FE256D9B.AF4DE X-intertainservices-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-intertainservices-MailScanner-From: mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: i keep *trying* to move from portupgrade to portmaster X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:50:11 -0000 On 8/13/2010 11:51 AM, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Mike Jakubik > wrote: >> Thanks for the info. Do you think this may be a usefull feature for other >> users coming from portupgrade though? If there is an option to always >> rebuild, one would think there would be an opposite option too. > > I can't speak for Doug as to what gets added to portmaster. > > However, as a user of portmaster, I would like to say that just > because portupgrade (or portmanager, or port-tool-of-the-month) has a > specific feature, doesn't mean it absolutely needs to be added to > portmaster. Im not saying because its in portupgrade it needs to be in portmaster. I'm simply saying that it's a useful feature for me, and possibly others. It also doesnt make sense to me to have an option to explicitly force rebuilds of ports that don't need an update, but have no option to disable rebuilds. > Personally, I can say that in my many years of using port management > tools (on firewalls, routers, servers, and desktops), I have never had > a need for a feature like this. >